
Wfl 

lililil 


Vr 


mmm m. m, Wm ' 



. .. . 




•' _, ■. . . "■•.-• .-■• ( ■ ■ 

The Need of a Short Ballot • 

• Ok? * 

in Ohio 


mm 

mmm 


- 


REPORT OF THE SHORT BALLO ! 
COMMITTEE OF THE MUNICIPAL 
ASSOCIATION OF-CLEVELAND ■ 






WSnSKMBmm mBM 

■ hfflfflm-. IBM^r 










T'^ 1 : /*T'iV''' ' V '• • , ..V^ .;,• -*,> i .' .? ;' 

December, 19! i • 

X-" $SMm x v^’V, "V * A 

Sfefe 




"T\ \j^ 




*A_- V. ' - ■ . . 


The Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


Report prepared and printed 
by the Short Ballot Committee 
of The Municipal Association 
of Cleveland for the Short Bal¬ 
lot Movement in Ohio 


The Municipal Association of Cleveland 
Cleveland, Ohio 
December, 1911 




The Short Ballot Movement in Ohio 

(Under auspices of National Short Ballot Organization, N. Y. 
and The Municipal Association of Cleveland, O.) 


Headquarters— 825-7 Engineers Building 
CLEVELAND, O. 


SHORT BALLOT COMMITTEE 


JOHN H. CLARKE ------- 

JAMES R. GARFIELD ------- 

MAYO FESLER -------- 

John A. Alburn R. H. Crowell 

Wm. Agnew W. B. Fish 

J. C. Beardsley L. E. Ralston 

Harry D. Thomas 


Chairman 
Vice Chairman 
Secretary 


H. W. Ashley— Toledo 
W. J. Beckley— Ravenna 
John E. Betts— Findlay 
Henry P. Boynton— Akron 
Geo. T. Brandon— Bellefontaine 
Jerome B. Burrows— Painesville 
A. G. Corning— Oberlin 
T. J. Creager— Springfield 
George T. Fillius— Warren 
A. L. Garford— Elyria 
Fred E. Guthery— Marion 
Raymond Hornbeck— W. Alexandria 
Lewis B. Houck— Mt. Vernon 
Jerome B. Howard— Cincinnati 
J. C. Jones— Ottawa 
J. H. Kauffman —Canton 
Frank H. Kerr —Steubenville 
James Kilbourne— Columbus 

F. W. 


Y BOARD 

L. K. Langdon —Lebanon 

C. E. Lawhead —Van Wert 
S. F. McDonald —Ashtabula 

D. Mead Massie —Chillicothe 
John F. Mayer —Hamilton 
W. M. Morgan —Newark 
C. J. Olds —Burton 
H. S. Peeke —Sandusky 
Gordon S. Reutchler —Hamilton 
Robert Ramsay —Cincinnati 
J. A. Robinson —Canton 
Warren E. Russell— Masgillon 
George Smith— East Liverpool 
C. F. Stewart— Springfield 
David Tod— Youngstown 
L. C. Van Ness —Akron 
John A. Voll —Zanesville 
S. A. Wildman— Norwalk 

Woods —Medina 







Statement of the Executive Board of The Municipal 
Association of Cleveland 


To the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention: — 

For fifteen years the Municipal Association of Cleveland has 
been laboring to improve the character of men elected to city and 
county offices in Cuyahoga County. We have sought to do this by 
furnishing the voters with correct information concerning the can¬ 
didates for office, by consistently urging them to vote for good men, 
and by encouraging efficient administration of public office. 

Public sentiment has distinctly grown in that regard during that 
time. But unfortunately we have had to contend during these years 
with a ballot, growing more and more complicated as each new office 
has been added to the elective list. 

The task placed upon the voter has become so great that it is prac¬ 
tically impossible in most cases for him to cast an intelligent vote. He 
has become more or less of a proxy, voting for the candidates named 
by the ticket makers in his party, or merely registering the opinion 
of some other men or group of men. 

Popular government, in the true sense of the word, under such 
circumstances is out of the question. The essence of popular govern¬ 
ment is a free and intelligent choice of officials, and their direct re¬ 
sponsibility to the electorate which places them in power. We can¬ 
not hope to have a really intelligent choice of elective officials until 
we simplify and clarify the election machinery by so reducing the 
number of elective offices that it will be possible for the voter to 
know the men in whose hands he is asked to place the administra¬ 
tion of public affairs. 

The present long ballot is the result in part of constitutional limi¬ 
tations and in part of legislative enactments. The delegates to the 
Constitutional Convention which convenes in January, can, we believe, 
perform a lasting service for popular government by removing these 
constitutional limitations and by incorporating in the new constitution 
the principles of the short ballot. 

The able report of the Short Ballot Committee which follows 
has been carefully prepared by men who have had broad experience 
in public affairs and contains what we believe to be the way out of 
the confusing political jungle of the long ballot. 

We approve the recommendations of the Committee and herewith 
present the report to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention 
with the hope that it will be of service to them in simplifying the elec¬ 
tion process and in restoring to the people the control of their gov¬ 
ernment. 

THE EXECUTIVE BOARD. 


MORRIS A. BLACK 
HENRY E. BOURNE 
HERBERT B. BRIGGS 
ECKSTEIN CASE 
JOHN H. CLARKE 


A. R. HATTON 
WILLIAM HOWELL 
HENRY F. LYMAN 
FRANKLIN S. McGOWAN 
WARREN S. STONE 


DUANE H. TILDEN 


MAYO FESLER, Secretary 





A SHORT BALLOT FOR OHIO. 

SUMMARY OF REPORT. 

I. Present conditions in election methods in Ohio. 

(a) A long and complicated ballot—state, county and city. 
Election of twenty-seven state, seventeen county, and 
thirty city offices required every two years in Cuyahoga 
County. 

Average of fifty-one offices to be filled every two years 
by election in first ten cities. 

Average of forty offices to be filled every two years by 
election in rural counties. 

(b) Complex primary and election laws. 

Laws themselves cover 214 printed pages. 

(c) Long ballot has been supplemented by initiative and ref¬ 
erendum which has further complicated the election 
machinery. 

Seven separate ballots in last election in Cleveland. 

Nine separate ballots in last election in Cincinnati. 

II. Results of these conditions. 

(a) An impossible burden placed upon the voter. 

(b) Blind and unintelligent voting. 

(c) The party organization has been diverted from its original 
and intended purpose of formulating and advocating 
policies to the mere function of ticket making. 

(d) Government has become undemocratic and unrepresen¬ 
tative. 

III. Remedy for conditions. 

(a) Simplification of the election machinery by adoption of 
short ballot principle. 

(b) Short ballot principles are two, viz: 

First: Only those offices should be elective which are 
important enough to command such a share of 
the attention of the voters as will insure an 
aroused public interest and a large vote. 

All other offices should be appointive. 

Second: Very few offices should be filled by election at 
one time so that adequate and unconfused exam¬ 
ination and comparison of the candidates will be 
possible. 

IV. Short ballot principle applied in Ohio. 

(a) State offices. 

Under Present System, average of 22 elective 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


5 


state officials. Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 
Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of State, Attor¬ 
ney General, Dairy and Food Commissioner, 
Members Board Public Works (3), Commis¬ 
sioner Common Schools, State Senator, State 
Representatives (2), Judges Supreme Court (6), 
Clerk Supreme Court, Judge Circuit Court. 
Total, 22. 

Under a Short Ballot System, average of 10 elec¬ 
tive state officials, Governor, State Senator, State 
Representatives, Judges Supreme Court (6), 
Judge Circuit Court. Total, 10. 

(b) County offices. 

Under Present System, an average of fifteen elec¬ 
tive county officials. Judges Court Common Pleas 
(2), Judge Probate Court, Judge Insolvency 
Court, Clerk of Court, County Commissioners (3), 
County Sheriff, Treasurer, Auditor, Recorder, 
Surveyor, Coroner and Prosecuting Attorney. 
Total, 15. 

Under a Short Ballot System, an average of nine 
elective county officials, Judges Court of Common 
Pleas (2), Judge Probate Court, Judge Insol¬ 
vency Court, County Commissioners (3), County 
Auditor, Prosecuting Attorney. Total, 9. 

(c) City offices. 

Under Present System, an average of twenty-one 
elective city officials. Mayor, President City 
Council, Auditor, Treasurer, Solicitor, Couneil- 
men-at-large (3), Ward Councilmen, Justices of 
Peace (3), Constables (3), Board of Education 
(5), Assessor (1). Total, 21. 

Under Short Ballot System, an average of six 
elective city officials. Mayor, Councilman. Judges 
Municipal Court or Justices of Peace (3) ; 
Member Bd. of Education (1). Total 6. 

V. Effects of Short Ballot. 

(a) Electors would be able to cast intelligent vote. 

(b) Responsibility would be fixed. 

(c) Public officials would become responsible to public opinion. 

(d) Representative government would be restored. 







The Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


HE citizens of Ohio have long and earnestly sought to make the 



A government of their state responsive to the popular will. With a 
view to accomplishing this end changes have been made in the constitu¬ 
tion; the election by the people of practically all officials has been re¬ 
quired; the number of elections has been increased; a popular pri¬ 
mary law has been enacted; a stringent corrupt practices act has 
been adopted; and many other devices known to legislation, which 
it was thought would make it easy to secure a free and effective ex¬ 
pression of public opinion, have been incorporated into law. Yet the 
general result has been the creation of a complicated election machin¬ 
ery, which imposes such a burden upon the ballot that the voter, 
in sheer necessity, is obliged in his voting to surrender much of his 
individual judgment of candidates and to accept instead the ready 
made opinion of one or the other of the party organizations. 

This unsatisfactory and undemocratic development of our election 
appliances has been one of gradual growth. The first Constitution of 
Ohio adopted in 1802, incorporated the principle of comparatively 
few elective officers. The only elective officials were the Governor, 
members of the General Assembly, one Sheriff and one Coroner in 
each county, and such town and township officers as should be pro¬ 
vided by law. The Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of State, 
and Judges of the Courts, were appointed by joint ballot of the Sen¬ 
ate and House of Representatives. All other civil offices, created by 
law, were made appointive. (Art. VI., Section 4.) 

LONG BALLOT INTRODUCED—CONSTITUTION 1851. 

Experience quickly proved that this arrangement of providing for 
the appointment of officers by the General Assembly was unwise, for 
it resulted inevitably in logrolling and in purely partisan political 
appointments. As a result of this experience the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention of 1850 sought to correct these abuses by increasing the num¬ 
ber of elective officials; and the new constitution, adopted in 1851, 
provided for the election of the members of the legislature, Governor, 
Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor of State, Treas¬ 
urer of State, Attorney General, members Ebard of Public Works, 
Judges of Supreme, Common Pleas and Probate Courts, Clerks of 
Courts, Justices of Peace, and all county and township officers. The 
General Assembly was forbidden to exercise any appointing power, 
except as specifically provided for in the Constitution. Civil offices 
to be created by law were not required to be filled by appointment 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


7 


as under the Constitution of 1802. As a result of these provisions 
and the laws since passed by the General Assembly the number of 
elective offices has been steadily increased since the adoption of the 
Constitution. 

Today the voter, for example in the city of Cleveland, whose 
duties differ only in degree from that of every other voter in the 
state, is called upon in a two year period to vote for 74 separate and 
distinct state, county, township and municipal officers, as follows: 


Governor. 1 

Lieutenant Governor. 1 

Secretary of State. 1 

Treasurer of State. 1 

Auditor of State. 1 

Attorney General. 1 

Dairy and Food Commissioner. 1 

Board of Public Works. 2 

Commissioner of Common Schools. 1 

State Senators . 3 

State Representatives .10 

Judges Supreme Court. 2 

Clerk of Supreme Court. 1 

Judges of Circuit Court. 1 

Judges Court of Common Pleas. 4 

Judges Probate Court. 1 

Judges Court of Insolvency. 1 

Clerk, Court of Common Pleas. 1 

County Commissioners . 3 

County Sheriff. 1 

County Auditor. 1 

County Treasurer . 1 

County Prosecuting Attorney. 1 

County Recorder. 1 

County Surveyor. 1 

County Coroner. 1 

Mayor . 1 

President City Council. 1 

City Auditor. 1 

City Treasurer. 1 

City Solicitor . 1 

Member City Council. 1 

Member City Council-at-Large. 6 

Judges Municipal Court. 4 

Justices of the Peace. 3 

Constables. 6 

Assessors. 1 

Members Board of Education. 4 


Total, 


74 














































8 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


The average number of different officers to be elected by the 
voters in each of the first ten cities of Ohio every two years is ap¬ 
proximately 51. 

The voter in the rural district votes for all of the state and county 
officers above enumerated, and instead of the municipal officers 
named in the list, he votes for the following township officers: 


Township Trustees . 3 

Township Clerk . 1 

Township Treasurer. 1 

Township Assessor . 1 

Justices of the Peace. 2 

Board of Education. 5 

Total, 13 


The average number of different officers elected by the voter in 
the rural district in each two year period is approximately 40. 

RECENT LONG BALLOTS. 

The ballot of the state and county election of 1908 contained the 
names of 391 candidates for forty-five separate offices, not includ¬ 
ing the twenty-three presidential electors. The ballot of the 1910 
election contained the names of 210 candidates for forty-two posi¬ 
tions. The ballot in the Cleveland municipal election of 1909 con¬ 
tained the names of 285 candidates. In the 1911 primary election 
in Cleveland 324 names appeared on the tickets of the two dominant 
parties. And at the November election of 1911, four tickets were 
submitted to the voter in each precinct in Cleveland containing the 
names of 132 candidates for forty distinct offices. 

It cannot be doubted that if the printer by mistake had omitted a 
half dozen names or more of the less conspicuous candidates from the 
ticket at any of our recent elections not one voter in fifty would have 
known the difference. Assuming that each voter casts his ballot for 
one candidate for each office to be filled, of how many of this great 
number of men to be voted for each year can he by any possibility 
have knowledge sufficient to enable him to compare them, man with 
man, and intelligently decide as to the fitness of one over the other 
for the office for which he selects them? 

Obviously, the voter cannot possibly investigate adequately and de¬ 
cide upon the fitness of more than four or five of the forty or more 
men for whom he must vote. But if he knows the fitness of only these 
few, how then can he make his choice of the remaining thirty-five or 
forty candidates ? Clearly he cannot make any choice of them as indi- 









Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


9 


viduals at all; but is obliged, because of the number, to vote for them in 
the mass by making choice between party organization managers, ma¬ 
chines, bosses or ticket makers as we may choose to call them, and 
then to accept their selection as his own. Thus does the present 
system compel all voters, intelligent or unintelligent, to vote a bal¬ 
lot, which so far as he is concerned, is nine-tenths an utterly ignorant 
ballot. From such voting as this we are sure to get unsatisfactory 
government. 

In addition to the long ballot we have developed in this state pri¬ 
mary and election laws so complex and cumbersome as to be entirely 
beyond mastery by any but expert lawyers or special students of them. 
They alone fill a printed volume of 214 pages. 

At the last session of the legislature an initiative and referendum 
law was passed applying to municipalities. Under this law there will 
doubtless be submitted to the voters from time to time, in addition 
to the long election ballot, many questions of legislative policy. The 
good results which this innovation promises will very certainly be 
defeated unless the ballot be so shortened that the voter will be able 
to give adequate consideration to the legislative questions thus to be 
submitted to him. 


BALLOTS IN 1911 ELECTION. 

On November 7th, the voters of Cleveland, for example, were 
asked not only to make their choice of forty officials from a list of 
132 candidates representing the four political parties, but also to ex¬ 
press an opinion upon , the advisability of the city issuing $2,000,000 
in bonds for building a municipal lighting plant; an opinion on the 
question whether the twelve amendments recently made to the Tayler 
Street Railway grant by the City Council are for the protection of 
the public interest; and also an opinion on the advisability of creat¬ 
ing a ; park commission as a substitute for the present plan of park 
control. When the voter entered the booth on November 7th, he 
received seven separate and distinct ballots, namely: 

1. A ballot containing 74 candidates for city offices. 

2. A ballot containing 12 candidates for Board of Education. 

3. A ballot containing 14 candidates for Municipal Court Judges. 

4. A ballot containing 32 candidates for the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention. 

5. A ballot relating to proposed $2,000,000 bond issue for Munici¬ 
pal Lighting plant. 

6. A ballot relating to changes in the Tayler Street Railway grant. 



10 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


7. A ballot indicating the voter’s approval or disapproval of the 
Park Commission. 

The voters of Cincinnati were confronted with even a more for¬ 
midable task. They were given nine separate and distinct ballots: 

1. The municipal ticket, containing names of candidates for city 
offices. 

2. Board of Education—non-partisan ballot. 

3. Delegates to Constitutional Convention. 

4. Judicial ballot in three parts. 

5. Ballot providing for annexation of eight suburbs. 

6. Bond issue in two parts—hospital purposes. 

7. Bond issue for new jail and courthouse. 

8. For increased tax levy under the Smith law. 

9. To provide for Agricultural Experimental Farm in Hamilton 
County. 


INTELLIGENT VOTING IMPOSSIBLE. 

To say that the voters in these two cities were called upon to per¬ 
form a difficult task is far within the facts—plainly, it was an impos¬ 
sible task. It is absurd to expect the average voter, whose first duty 
is to earn a living for himself and family, to give the time necessary 
to enable him to vote intelligently and with discrimination on so 
many candidates and at the same time on such complicated questions 
of municipal policy as those submitted in Cleveland and Cincinnati. 
The best informed voter was probably able to vote intelligently, as 
we have pointed out, upon not more than one-tenth of the candidates 
on the various ballots and he was therefore obliged to vote ignorant 
ly on the other nine-tenths ; which means that he either voted blindly 
on a large majority of the candidates, voted the party ticket of his 
district, or followed the opinion of some independent association 
which attempts to furnish without partisan bias an estimate of the 
candidates’ qualifications for office. In either case he voted as a 
proxy. He registered not an opinion of his own, but merely the 
opinion of some other men or group of men. Voting, under such 
conditions, is a mere farce, the blind approval by the citizens of 
some party ticket. 

The utter impossibility of the average voter acquainting himself with 
the personnel of the long party ticket has inevitably made the party 
organization in this State an agency for the furtherance of the politi 
cal ambitions of those seeking political offices rather than for the 
promotion of principles and policies making for the public welfare. 
As a result, the system which was intended to extend and preserve 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


11 


democratic government, to keep control of all offices in the people, 
to fix responsibility upon elective officers, and to insure a ready re¬ 
sponse on their part to public opinion, has directly resulted in plac¬ 
ing responsibility and power in organizations wholly outside the 
elected officials—in the party organization itself—over which the peo¬ 
ple have no direct control at the polls and which, therefore, does not 
feel any immediate and direct obligation and responsibility to the 
people. 

This policy of attempting to elect all officers, important and unim¬ 
portant, instead of securing to the people control of their govern¬ 
ment and of its officials, as was intended, has resulted, as Prof. 
Charles A. Beard has so graphically stated, in a system which has 
“not only paralyzed the ballot, but which has perverted the political 
party from its true function, which is to reflect and formulate the 
policy of the various cohering groups within each political area; and 
has made of it a mere office filling machine dealing in the salaries 
of officers and the privileges which they confer. Our political ap¬ 
pliances have fallen into the control of groups of political experts 
and voting at an election is only a ratification of the slates made by 
them and is not an expression of the will of the voters.” 

Or, as Governor Woodrow Wilson has expressed it: “We have 
been calling our government a republic and we have been living 
under the delusion that it is a representative government. This is 
the theory. But, the fact is, we are not living under a representa¬ 
tive government; we are living under a system of party managers 
who in secret conferences and for private ends determine what we 
shall and shall not have.” 

SIMPLIFICATION OF BALLOT—THE REMEDY. 

The indispensable requirement of any remedy for this compli¬ 
cated and undemocratic condition in our elective system in Ohio is, 
we believe, the simplification of our ballot by shortening it—by reduc¬ 
ing the number of elective officers to a minimum, and thereby mak¬ 
ing the task of the voter as easy as is consistent with the mainte¬ 
nance of his interest in governmental affairs. 

We pointed out in a former paragraph how the ballot in this state 
has so grown in length that it now includes 74 officers who must be 
elected every two years at two annual elections. Obviously the only 
way toward simplification lies in making many of these offices ap¬ 
pointive, thereby so reducing the number of candidates to be voted 
for that the voter can know for whom he is voting; and by giving 








12 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


the elective officials remaining such appointing power that they will be¬ 
come so important that the voter will feel it his duty, as he does not 
now, to know for whom he is voting. 

Applying this method to Ohio conditions, let us see what officers 
should be made elective and what appointive. 

MEMBERS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 

Obviously the members of the General Assembly—the officers en¬ 
gaged in formulating the public policies of the state—must remain elec¬ 
tive and get their authority from the voters whose representatives 
they are. There can be no change in this respect. 

Yet there is one change which should be made in order to 
secure a more intelligent representation in the legislature. Under 
the present constitution in the more populous counties of the 
state all of the candidates for the General Assembly are voted for 
on one ticket; with the result that in 1910 the voters of Cuyahoga 
County voted for three State Senators and ten members of the House 
of Representatives; the voters of Franklin County voted for one Sena¬ 
tor and three members of the House of Representatives; the voters of 
Hamilton County voted for three Senators and nine members of the 
House of Representatives; the voters of Lucas County voted for two 
Senators and three members of the House of Representatives; and the 
voters of Montgomery County voted for one Senator and three mem¬ 
bers of the House of Representatives. 

It would be entirely consistent with the principle and practice which 
is now followed in the election of members of the General Assembly 
from the counties of smaller population, if the counties of great popu¬ 
lation were subdivided into districts in which but one member of each 
House should be elected. It would certainly seem the part of wis¬ 
dom for the citizen of Cuyahoga County, for instance, to vote for one 
Senator and one Representative whom he could readily learn all about 
before election day rather than for him to be called upon to vote for 
thirteen persons of whom he must necessarily know very little, and who 
must therefore be accepted not on their known merits, but because 
they have succeeded in getting their names printed upon a ticket which 
the necessity of the situation compels the voter to accept. The one 
plan gives the voter an opportunity to exercise his intelligence and to 
express the result of such exercise. The other obliges him to accept 
the conclusion of others—the ticket makers. Changes readily made in 
the present constitution would effect this result, with respect to mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly. 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


13 


STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES. 

But when it comes to carrying out the policies determined upon by 
the legislature the men who do the work should be appointed by some 
proper and competent authority. Time and experience has abundantly 
proven it a sound principle that “when you want representation, elect. 
When you want administration, appoint.” 

Governor —The Governor who is at the head of the administration 
and who has also policy determining powers should, of course, be 
elected. 

Lieutenant Governor —So seldom is the Lieutenant Governor called 
upon to assume the duties of Governor that his duties as presiding 
officer of the Senate are clearly his most important function, and he 
should therefore be appointed by that body over which he presides. 
Moreover, experience has shown that so little importance is attached 
to the office, and so little interest is taken by the voters in his selection, 
that it is believed no sound objection can be raised to abolishing the of¬ 
fice as such; provided a satisfactory succession to the Governor, sim¬ 
ilar, possibly, to that of the President, be adopted. Such a succession 
would insure the continuance of the Governor’s policy, which the peo¬ 
ple have approved with his election. Eleven states in the Union have, 
in their constitutions, omitted the Lieutenant Governor from the list 
of elective officials. 

Secretary of State —The duties of the Secretary of State are so 
fully determined by law that he has very little discretionary power. 
He is the custodian of laws and documents; the keeper of the great 
seal; he has supervision of the printing done by the State; he directs 
the compilation of statistics; he collects fees; and he registers corpora¬ 
tions. In fact the only duty now devolving upon him which is not 
primarily ministerial in character is the duty of interpreting the mean¬ 
ing of the election laws, and in this he usually follows the advice of 
the Attorney General. His duties have nothing to do with the formu¬ 
lation of policies and are not at all comparable in character or im¬ 
portance with those of the Secretary of State in the President’s Cabi¬ 
net, which is an appointive office and which throughout the history of 
the nation has usually been occupied by men of rare talent and great 
ability. Judging from the experience of the federal government it is 
safe to predict that the State would, in the future, secure better ser¬ 
vice if the Secretary of State were appointed by the Governor than if 
we continue to refer his election to an ever increasing electorate to 
whom he cannot possibly mean more than another unknown name 
upon the ballot. 




14 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


State Treasurer —Even more certainly should the office of State 
Treasurer be made an appointive office. The Treasurer is simply the 
custodian of the funds of the state and his primary duties consist in 
collecting and disbursing those funds. There are only two ways of 
doing this, the right way and the wrong way, and no Republican or 
Democratic party platform or principle will be of any assistance to 
him in performing his duties. His usually heavy bond is sufficient 
to safeguard the interest of the state. Moreover, the average voter 
cannot be induced to pay enough attention to his selection to insure 
a wise choice. His functions being confined to those of a purely 
fiscal officer, he should certainly be appointed by the Governor. 

Attorney General —If there is any doubt as to the propriety of mak¬ 
ing other state officers appointive there certainly can be none as to the 
office of Attorney General. His relation to the Governor is almost that 
of an attorney to his client and the utmost harmony and co-operation 
should exist between them. The entire administration for which the 
Governor is held responsible can be seriously embarrassed by an Attor¬ 
ney General who is of the opposite party or out of sympathy with the 
policies of the Governor, as has been proved more than once in the 
history of this State. If the Governor is to be held responsible for the 
carrying out of the policies for which he was elected he should certainly 
have the power to appoint his chief legal adviser. 

State Auditor —Doubts may arise as to the wisdom of making the 
Auditor pf State an appointive office. He is the chief accounting offi¬ 
cer of the State. He has large discretionary powers in the direction 
of anticipating the collection of taxes, remitting illegal taxes, collect¬ 
ing claims in favor of the State, examining public institutions, and 
inspecting and supervising public offices. Yet, with the adoption of 
the state-wide accounting system the larger portion of the Auditor’s 
work has to do with local, county and municipal accounts rather than 
with those of the State. From this point of view his appointment 
would be preferred. Moreover, the corresponding official in the fed¬ 
eral government, the Secretary of the Treasury, is an appointive offi¬ 
cer whose office has been singularly free from the criticism of being 
in collusion with other departments of government for the purpose of 
hiding frauds or inefficiency. The successful experience in the federal 
department and the state-wide character of Auditor’s work would indi¬ 
cate that greater efficiency on the whole would be secured if he were 
appointed by the Governor. 

Public School Commissioner —There is nothing in the duties of the 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


15 


State Commissioner of Public Schools which makes it advisable to elect 
rather than appoint him. Furthermore, the people are so little inter¬ 
ested in the office that even his nomination at the party convention is 
given little attention by the delegates. He should, we believe, be ap¬ 
pointed by the Governor, who would give full consideration to his 
educational qualifications rather than his political availability. 

Dairy and Food Commissioner —The State Dairy and Food Com¬ 
missioner should be an expert appointed for a long or indefinite term, 
and should be absolutely free from partisan influence. His duties have 
to do with enforcing the laws against food adulteration and unlawful 
labeling of food products. He and his assistants must be trained and 
equipped to inspect and detect adulteration and impurities. There is 
no relation between this service and politics. Moreover, not one voter 
in a hundred knows or cares about the qualifications of this particular 
official. The citizen is interested only in being protected against the 
frauds which are daily attempted by some food manufacturers and 
their agents. And the probability is that this protection would be 
greatly improved and extended if the Dairy and Food Commissioner 
were appointed by and made directly responsible to the Governor. In 
fact, the office could well be dispensed with and the duties be per¬ 
formed by experts under the direction of the Board of Agriculture. 

Board of Public Works —The people hold the Governor responsible 
not only for the routine administration of the various departments at 
the State Capitol, but also for the construction and maintenance, and 
repair of all public works over the State such as canals, reservoirs, 
water power, state parks, etc., and yet he is deprived of the power to 
name the Board of Public Works which has control of this field of ad¬ 
ministration. The office is one requiring special business qualifications 
of a high order, about which the average voter knows little. Since the 
Governor, as we have said, is held responsible.for the administration of 
the public works, every consideration of justice as well as of efficiency 
in administration requires that the members of the Board should be 
appointed by him just as he appoints the members of the Public Ser¬ 
vice Commission, the State Tax Commission and officers of various 
kinds with like duties. Furthermore, we believe that a single Director 
appointed by the Governor would be far more effective in the admin¬ 
istration of the department than is a board of three men. 

Clerk of the Supreme Court —The appointment of the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court by the Judges of the Court rather than his election 
by the people is scarcely open to an objection. It is absurd to ask a 








16 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


million voters to express a choice for an officer whose duties are 
purely clerical and have nothing to do with state policies or state 
administration. 

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION. 

Every student of our governmental system is aware that one of the 
greatest weaknesses in Ohio, as well as in other states, but especially 
in Ohio, is to be found in the organization of the state administration. 
Our State has no real head in an executive and administrative sense. 
The Governor nominally occupies that position; but while he is sworn 
to see that the laws of the state are faithfully executed, he is left with¬ 
out adequate means of carrying out his oath of office; for over the 
general administrative offices of the State he has little, if indeed, any 
control. The heads of the various departments are separately elected 
and for this reason regard themselves as commissioned by and respon¬ 
sible to the people, not the Governor. The only chance for a har¬ 
monious and effective state administration is found in the election of 
the entire state ticket of one political party. Even then harmony is 
not assured, for the various candidates are placed on the ticket not 
with a view to co-operation with the Governor and each other in carry¬ 
out any general policy but on account of their availability as vote get¬ 
ters or because it is believed they will serve the ends of party man¬ 
agers. Each member of the administration, being responsible to the 
people separately, can pursue his own course, fully aware that the at¬ 
tention of the voter is centered on the figurehead Governor and that 
any shortcomings on his own part are likely to escape notice. 

GOVERNOR WITHOUT LEGAL POWER. 

Too much emphasis cannot be laid upon the fact that such control as 
the Governor exercises over the state administration at the present time 
is extra-legal—it exists not on account of the constitution, but in spite 
of it. It is the result of party leadership, personal influence, or, in ex¬ 
treme cases, of the Governor’s ability to arouse public sentiment so that 
pressure may be brought to bear on offending officers and party lead¬ 
ers. It is not a pleasant situation to be popularly regarded as the head 
of the state administration and held responsible for its acts when con¬ 
trol over it can be exercised only by indirect methods and often against 
the opposition of those who, under any logical arrangement, would be 
subordinates and advisers. There can be little doubt that a change in 
our Constitution which would make the Governor the real head of the 
State administration and give him adequate powers of appointment 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


17 


and of law enforcement would contribute greatly to a more efficient 
administration of our state affairs. 

FEDERAL PLAN OF APF OINTMENT. 

It is one of the strange facts of our political history that our state 
constitution which was modeled after the federal instrument in almost 
every particular should have departed from it in regard to the organi- 
ation of the executive department; one of the most successful features 
of the national government and one that makes most strongly for popu¬ 
lar control. The conviction is now general that the effectiveness of the 
national administration is due almost entirely to the fact that the ap¬ 
pointing power and responsibility are centered in the President. No one 
is ever in doubt as to who is to blame for the continuance of corrup¬ 
tion or maladministration in any federal office. From the lowest of¬ 
ficial in the federal service to members of the Cabinet the President is 
in control. His is the power and his the responsibility. The same cen¬ 
tralization of state control and responsibility in the Governor should, 
we believe, be adopted in State administrations. 

THE GOVERNOR’S CABINET. 

The officers of state which we have been considering constitute in 
as true a sense the cabinet of the Governor as do the various heads of 
the federal executive departments the President’s cabinet. If state 
affairs are to be most efficiently administered there must be harmony 
and co-operation. Such co-operation is impossible while each of these 
officers derives his authority from election by the people; because there 
is no authority but the criminal courts to call him to account for any 
shortcomings until the end of his term; and also because it may hap¬ 
pen that these officers may be elected in part from each of the two great 
political parties. All of our political experience goes to show that this 
power of appointment and removal in the Governor is necessary in or¬ 
der to secure that energy and co-operation in administration which is 
necessary to efficient government in our state. 

If it be objected that it would be unwise or dangerous to invest the 
Governor with such large appointing power, the sufficient answer is 
that it is better and safer to have this power in the Governor whom the 
people can discipline or discharge every second year than it is to con¬ 
tinue it, as it now is, in party managers who really have the power 
to appoint or remove all of these officers by giving or refusing nomina¬ 
tions, which are equivalent to elections on the successful ticket. It is 
better to have this power in the Governor than in “men who have 
charge of the nominating machinery of any party, men who are usu- 










18 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


ally outside the government as legally constituted, who hold no office, 
do not ask the people for their suffrage, and are picked out for their 
function by private processes over which the people have no control.” 

The results of the application of the suggestions which we have 
been discussing to administrative state offices would be the reduction 
of the state ticket from twenty-one offices, as in 1910, to the considera¬ 
tion of the names of candidates for three offices, viz: 

One Governor. 

One State Senator. 

One Member of the House of Representatives. 

With such a ticket as this voters would have no excuse for igno¬ 
rance regarding candidates for State offices. 

COUNTY OFFICES. 

In Ohio, as elsewhere, the application of the Short Ballot prin¬ 
ciples to county organization presents difficulties which are not en¬ 
countered in its application to state and municipal offices. The diffi¬ 
culty arises from three concurring causes, viz: 

(1) The political traditions of the people are all in favor of con¬ 
tinuing unmodified a form of local government which has existed with 
little change since the first settlement of the state. 

(2) The present election system, even with its long ballot and 
divided responsibility works in a fairly satisfactory manner in rural 
counties where the population is not great, where candidates for office 
are usually well known to the voters, and where the long state and city 
tickets do not make adequate attention to the county candidate impos¬ 
sible. 

(3) There is no county officer sufficiently more important than the 
others to make him a natural appointing power of other officers. 

But while the existing form of county organization and government 
works fairly well in rural counties; in counties with large cities it is 
usually inefficient, often dishonest, and always needlessly expensive, 
duplicating as it does much of the work that could be done better by 
city officials. It is clear beyond discussion that a form of county gov¬ 
ernment adapted to Cuyahoga County is not adapted to Geauga County 
conditions, and that what is suited to Hamilton County conditions is 
not suited to those of Adams County. 

Every two years the voters of each county are called upon to elect 
eleven men to fill county offices, viz: County Commissioners (3), 
Clerk of Courts, Sheriff, Auditor, Treasurer, Prosecuting Attorney, 
Recorder, Surveyor and Coroner. The county ballot can, we believe, 
be materially decreased in size in the interest of efficient government. 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


19 


It is generally admitted that the Clerk of Courts should be appointed 
by the judges whose courts he must serve. The office of Coroner 
should be abolished as useless for the most part, and the few remain¬ 
ing necessary functions of the office should be transferred to the 
Sheriff. The Sheriff might well be appointed by the courts, because 
nine-tenths of his duties consist in serving their writs and executing 
their judgments and orders. 

It would add to the importance and dignity of the County Com¬ 
missioners, and so give a greater interest to the voters in their elec¬ 
tion, if the Board were given the power to appoint the County Treas¬ 
urer, Recorder and Surveyor. All three of these officers are purely 
administrative; and what a candidate’s party preference may be has 
not the slightest bearing on his ability to fill the office. Indeed it may 
confidently be said that the less such officers as these are concerned 
with “political work” the more satisfactory will the conduct of their 
offices be to the people. It may be added that vacancies in county offices 
are now filled by appointment of the County Commissioners. Even 
these changes would reduce the county ballot from one with eleven 
names to a more practical and workable one with but five names upon 
it, viz: three commissioners, one auditor, and one prosecuting attorney. 

HOME RULE FOR COUNTIES. 

Such marked changes in the method of selecting county officials as 
we have thus suggested, are, of course, contrary to the traditions of 
local government which have existed since the State was first organized 
and would, no doubt, be strongly opposed especially in the rural coun¬ 
ties. In view of this opposition, on the one hand, and the reviving 
confidence in the capacity of the people to govern themselves on the 
other, the wise disposition of the problem which county government 
presents seems to lie in the granting of home rule to the county unit 
as has been done in California, provision being made, of course, for 
the discharge of every county obligation to the State. 

If this were done Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Lucas, Franklin, Mont¬ 
gomery and perhaps others of the counties of the state in which the 
city population greatly exceeds the population outside the city but 
within the county, could frame a form of government suited to the 
needs of each which would secure to the people much greater efficiency 
of administration than they now have, at much less cost, and with so 
few elective officers that the people could know for whom they should 
vote, whom they should trust, and precisely whom they should watch 
after the election is over. 






20 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


TOWNSHIP OFFICERS. 

At the present time the voter in the township, in addition to the state 
and county ticket above indicated, is called upon every two years to 
elect thirteen township officers, namely: three trustees, one clerk, one 
treasurer, one assessor, two justices of the peace, and five members 
of the Board of Education. Obviously this number of elective officials 
for so small a political unit as the township could be greatly reduced 
in the interest of economy and efficiency. If there is any disposition 
on the part of the Constitutional Convention to effect improvements 
of this nature in state and county offices, the needs of the township in 
this direction will, in all probability, be given full consideration, or 
the Legislature will be left free to deal with the question, as is pro¬ 
vided in the present constitution. 

CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES. 

The application of the short ballot principle to city government 
is not confronted with any of those difficulties which we have found 
in applying them to counties. Both sound argument and practical ex¬ 
perience are in its favor when applied to urban centers. The city, 
with its compact population where the government comes into im¬ 
mediate and daily contact with the people, where the daily newspaper 
keeps public attention aroused to municipal problems, and where cam¬ 
paigns are fought out on the adoption of important policies relating 
to municipal administration, furnishes the best possible field for the 
successful application of the principle of few elective officials. The 
short ballot principle can be effectively applied whether we retain the 
present so-called federal plan, or provide for the adoption of the com¬ 
mission form of municipal government. 

UNDER THE FEDERAL PLAN. 

If we retain the so-called federal plan, then the Mayor should, of 
course, be elected by popular vote and he should then be given full 
control of the administration through the power to appoint all heads 
of departments and to hold them directly responsible to him just as 
he is directly responsible to his superiors, the people. It is only under 
such conditions as these that he can be justly held responsible for the 
success or failure of his administration. The heads of departments 
are, in a sense, the Mayor’s cabinet and serve as his advisers. He 
certainly should be given the power to select for such duty men who 
are in full sympathy with his policies, to the end that there may be 
co-operation and efficiency in the service. 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


21 


This principle has been carried out in part under the present 
Municipal Code. The Mayor is given the power to appoint his chief 
assistants, the Director of Public Service and the Director of Public 
Safety. No one will, we believe, question the fact that the appoint¬ 
ment of these officials has contributed much toward unifying and 
making more efficient the administration of city affairs. For the 
same reasons, the other administrative heads, namely, City Treasurer, 
City Auditor, and City Solicitor should be appointed by the Mayor 
so that he may have actual and not merely nominal control over them 
and cordial support from them. 

CITY COUNCIL. 

The City Council—the legislative department—must, of course, be 
elected for the same reasons that the General Assembly of the state 
is elective. Here in Ohio, however, we have made the municipal 
ballot unnecessarily long by providing for the election of a President 
of the Council and a certain number of councilmen-at-large. 

The chief duty of the President of the Council is to act as pre¬ 
siding officer of that body. The rare occasions upon which he is 
called upon to act as Mayor are negligible in comparison with his 
duties as President of the Council. He should, therefore, we believe, 
be selected by the body over which he presides. Councilmen will 
certainly give much more attention to the selection of a proper man 
for the position than it is possible for the people to give at the polls, 
where, as experience shows, in ninety cases out of a hundred, his 
name is hardly noticed and his selection is determined by the voter’s 
choice for Mayor. 

The expectation that the office of councilman-at-large would bring 
into the municipal legislature men of superior ability with large views 
to modify the supposed local prejudices of ward councilmen has 
proved disappointing in practice. They have qpt been any more repre¬ 
sentative than the ward members, and, on the whole, not more effec¬ 
tive in promoting large improvements or broad municipal policies. 
There is a general belief that this experiment with councilmen-at- 
large, now nine years old, should be abandoned. This would reduce 
the voter’s task, in so far as the legislative body is concerned, to the 
selection of one candidate—his representative in the City Council. 
This is the plan adopted in English cities where it has worked satis¬ 
factorily for more than half a century, as pointed out by Mr. Childs 
in his discussion of the short ballot: 

‘The mechanism by which the British voter controls his city 
government is a ballot about the size of a post card. There are two 









22 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


names, or three, on it: the voter selects one. To make up his mind 
on that simple choice is the whole work of the voter in the campaign 
and on election day. The chance of his selecting the candidate who 
really best represents his wishes is excellent—certainly much better 
than that of an American voter who is trying to make wise selections 
for thirty offices at one time!” 

UNDER THE COMMISSION PLAN. 

It is believed that the good results which have been achieved 
in municipal government in recent years through the so-called com¬ 
mission plan in various forms is largely the result of the fact that the 
short ballot, which it requires, makes it possible for the people really 
to rule. 

The commission form of government has as its fundamental prin¬ 
ciple the concentration of legislative and administrative powers in 
a small body of men, usually five or seven. Responsibility for the 
proper exercise of these powers is definitely localized in these men. 
Their mere conspicuousness makes it possible for the voter to know 
how well the individual members of the commission have met their 
responsibility. This is one of the essential features in the short ballot 
principle. 

MUNICIPAL HOME RULE. 

A strong feeling exists that the cities of the state should have the 
right to determine each for itself the particular form of government 
which it will adopt—consistent, of course, with the constitution and 
general laws of the state. If this desirable provision is incorporated 
in the new constitution then the cities of Ohio will have the oppor¬ 
tunity of adopting the form which is best adapted to their particular 
conditions. 

In either case the size of the ballot would be reduced from twenty 
names, as in the last Cleveland municipal election, to one of two, five 
or seven names at most. 


THE JUDICIARY. 

Another deviation from the policy of appointment rather than 
popular election which is thought by many to have proved unfortu¬ 
nate to the state, has been the popular election of judges of the higher 
courts. In the Constitution of 1802, the appointment of these judges 
was made by a joint ballot of the two houses of the General Assembly. 
This method resulted in disgraceful political log rolling and a conse¬ 
quent lowering of the standard of the courts. One of the chief rea¬ 
sons advanced for a new constitution in 1850 was the need of chang¬ 
ing the method of selecting judges. So the Constitution of 1851 pro- 



Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


23 


vided for their direct election by the people. While the plan is much 
better than appointment by the Legislature, the result has not been 
what could be desired. 

The popular election of judges, up to the present time, has made 
the choice a matter of partisan politics. Nominations are made in 
party primaries or by party conventions. Candidates for judicial 
honors contribute their proportion to the campaign fund. Their elec¬ 
tion is secured through the party organization and they are placed 
under obligations so that the judicial patronage must be distributed 
under its direction and political friends are not forgotten after the 
candidate is on the bench. In brief, the high office of judge, which 
should be as nearly as possible free from bias and party prejudice, 
becomes the gift of the party managers with many of the obligations 
in return which such a gift implies. The judicial history of Ohio 
is replete with evidences of political influence and interference in the 
decisions of the higher courts of the state at many critical periods in 
its history. 


PEOPLE FAVOR ELECTION OF JUDGES. 

Many students of political conditions advocate as an antidote to 
these influences the appointment of judges by the Governor instead of 
their election by the people. Some members of this committee and 
many people contend that experience has not shown that this would 
improve the quality of the Courts. Whether or not this would insure a 
more independent judiciary, need not concern us now, for this solu¬ 
tion would not be entertained by the people at this time. The power 
of the judiciary has been so increased of late by the growing freedom 
with which injunctions are granted and by the free, not to say aggres¬ 
sive, way in which acts of the Legislature and Congress are set aside 
as unconstitutional, that it is believed that a proposal for the appoint¬ 
ment of judges would be overwhelmingly rejected by the people of 
the state. 

However, the present system of making judicial place a prize of 
party politics can easily be changed so as to give at least a very strong 
promise of improvement in the character of our judges. If the nomi¬ 
nation of judges were made strictly non-partisan as has been done 
for their election by providing that they should be nominated only 
by petition as well as voted for on a ticket without party designation, 
and with the names of candidates rotating; and if, in addition to this, 
party contribution to campaign funds by judicial candidates were pro¬ 
hibited, it is believed a judiciary more satisfactory to the people than 
we have had in recent years would be obtained. If the other tickets 
were shortened in something like the manner we have suggested in this 
pamphlet, the number of judges to be voted for at one time under 
these conditions need not seriously violate the short ballot principle. 








24 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


THE NEW AND THE OLD. 

We have pointed out the various offices—state, county and munici¬ 
pal—which, in our opinion, should be appointive rather than elective. 
In order to make it more graphic, we have prepared the following two 
schedules of elections which show at a glance the comparative task 
put upon the average voter. We take a cycle of four years in order 
to show the variations in number of candidates to be chosen. 

VOTER’S TASK UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM. 

(Showing Number of Candidates to be Chosen in Cleveland, Ohio.) 


1908 

State and County. 


1909. 


1910 


1911 


Municipal. 


State and County. 


Municipal. 


Governor . 1 

Lieut. Governor. 1 

Sec’y. of State . 1 

Auditor of State .... 1 
Treasurer of State... 1 
Attorney General ... 1 
School Commissioner.. 1 
Bd. of Public Works. . 2 
Dairy and Food Com¬ 
missioner . 1 

State Senators . 3 

Members, House of 

Representatives .10 

Judges, Supreme Court 2 
Clerk, Supreme Court 1 
Judge, Circuit Court. . 1 
Judge, Court of Com¬ 
mon Pleas . 4 

Judge, Insolvency 

Court . 1 

County Commissioners. 3 

County Clerk . 1 

County Auditor . 1 

County Treasurer ... 1 
County Recorder ... 1 
County Surveyor ... 1 
County Coroner .... 1 

Sheriff . 1 

Prosecuting Attorney. 1 

Total .43 


Mayor . 1 

Pres. City Council... 1 

City Auditor . 1 

City Treasurer . 1 

City Solicitor . 1 

Council-at-large . 6 

Council by ward .... 1 
Justices of Peace ... 3 

Constables . 7 

Assessor . 1 

Bd. of Education.... 4 
Appraisers of 

Real Property . 5 


Governor . 1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


Total 


.32 


Lieut. Governor .. 
Secretary of State. 
Auditor of State . 
Treasurer of State 
Attorney General . 
School Commissioners. 
Bd. Public Works . . 
Dairy and Food 

Commissioner.1 

State Senators . 3 

Members House of 

Representatives .10 

Judges, Supreme Court 2 
Clerk, Supreme Court 
Judge Circuit Court.. 
Judge, Court of 

Common Pleas .... 
Judge, Probate Court. 
Judge, Insolvency 

Court . 1 

County Commissioners 3 

County Clerk . 1 

County Auditor . 1 

County Treasurer .... 1 
County Recorder .... 1 
County Surveyor .... 1 

County Coroner . 1 

County .Sheriff . 1 

Prosecuting Atty. ... 1 
Total .43 


Mayor . 1 

Pres. City Council .. 1 

City Auditor . 1 

City Treasurer . 1 

City Solicitor . 1 

Council-at-large . 6 

Council by ward . 1 

Tudges, Municipal 

^ Court . ... 7 

Clerk Municipal 

Court . 1 

Constables . 6 

Bd. of Education .... 3 
Assessor . 1 


Total .30 


VOTER’S TASK UNDER SHORT BALLOT SYSTEM. 
(Showing Number of Candidates to be Chosen in Cleveland, Ohio.) 


1908 

State and County. 


1909. 

Municipal. 


1910. 

State and County. 


1911. 

Municipal. 


Governor . 1 

State Senator . 1 

Representative . 1 

Judges, Supreme 

Court . 1 

Judge, Circuit Court.. 1 
Judges, Court of Com¬ 
mon Pleas . 2 

Judge. Insolvency 

Court . 1 

County Commissioners 3 
County Auditor .... 1 
Prosecuting Attorney. 1 


Mayor . 1 

Councilman . 1 

Justices . 3 


Board of Education.. 1 


Governor . 1 

Representative . 1 

Judges, Supreme 

Court . 2 

Judge, Circuit Court. 1 
Judges, Court Com¬ 
mon Pleas . 2 

Judg'e, Insolvency Court 1 
County Commissioners 3 

County Auditor . 1 

Prosecuting Attorney. 1 


Mayor . 

Councilman . 

Judges, Municipal 

Court . 

Board of Education.. 


1 

1 

7 

1 


Total 


.13 


Total . 6 


Total . .13 Total .10 
































































































Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


25 


With such a short and simple ballot as is indicated in the last table, 
the voter would not need to vote by proxy, or confer with the party 
leaders in his precinct, or consult the bulletins of a municipal associa¬ 
tion. He would be able with little effort to know the merits of the 
various candidates and would have no excuse for ignorant or careless 
voting. 


A RETURN TO REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

The adoption of the short ballot as we have outlined it in this dis¬ 
cussion would, we believe, be a long step in the return to representa¬ 
tive government which we have not had in this state for many years. 
We have been dimly conscious that something was wrong with the 
government and we have sought to correct it by the secret ballot, by 
popular primaries, by corrupt practices acts and by the thousand legal 
regulations that encumber the statute books. But, instead of restor¬ 
ing responsible government, they have only checked the tendency 
toward irresponsibility, and we have, in fact, gradually got futher 
from responsible government, until the mass of the people have less faith 
than ever before in representative institutions, and are seeking a pos¬ 
sible relief in direct legislation and pure democracy, without perceiv¬ 
ing that this will not lighten but add to the burden which has already 
paralyzed the ballot and delivered over the electorate bound and help¬ 
less into the keeping of political experts and their extra legal machine, 
both of which are rendered safe and secure by the very complexity 
of the system of which they form a part. 

SHORT BALLOT—NOT A PANACEA FOR ALL 
POLITICAL ILLS. 

The short ballot is not a panacea for all our political ills—nor do 
its most ardent supporters so consider it. But we firmly believe that 
this somewhat radical reform in our electoral system is the first funda¬ 
mental step in the process of placing the control again in the hands 
of the people and thus making government responsible and responsive 
to the popular will. 

The trouble is not with the electorate. The electorate of Ohio is 
not surpassed by that of any state in the Union in its intelligent and 
active interest in public affairs. A glance at the political revolutions 
that have taken place in the state within the past ten or fifteen years 
shows the desire and the determination of the people to have control 
of their own institutions. The fault is not with the voter, but with 
the system. Governor Woodrow Wilson has clearly summed up our 
conditions in that regard in the statement: 








26 


Need of a Short Ballot in Ohio 


“Public opinion was never better informed, never more intelli¬ 
gent, never more eager to make itself felt in the control of gov¬ 
ernment for the betterment of the nation, than it is now; and 
yet, I venture to say, it was never more helpless to obtain its 
purposes by ordinary and stated means. It has to resort to con¬ 
vulsive, agitated, almost revolutionary means to have its way. It 
knows what it wants. It wants good men in office, sensible laws 
adjusted to existing conditions, conscience in affairs and intelli¬ 
gence in their direction. But it is at a loss to get these. It flings 
itself this way and that, frightens this group of politicians, pets 
that, hopes, protests, demands, but cannot govern.” 

This statement aptly applies to the conditions which have existed 
in this state for half a century—the remedy, we believe, is to be found 
in the short ballot. 


DUTY OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

In January next, 119 delegates from the various counties of the 
state will meet in Columbus to draft and submit to the people a new 
Constitution. That Convention will have the power to give to the 
people in its fundamental law this simple and effective instrument 
of popular government. No more important duty, in our opinion, 
confronts the Constitutional Convention than the removal of the com¬ 
plexity and confusion in our election machinery, and the restoration 
of the control of government to the people. The adoption of the 
short ballot affords the first obvious and fundamental step in the dis¬ 
charge of that duty. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SHORT BALLOT COMMITTEE 


JOHN H. CLARKE, Chairman 


JOHN A. ALBURN 
WM. AGNEW 
J. C. BEARDSLEY 
R. H. CROWELL 


W. B. FISH 
JAS. R. GARFIELD 
L. E. RALSTON 
HARRY D. THOMAS 


MAYO FESLER, Secretary 





















































































































































* 


























































































































































































































































































































* 
















